The Times has seen a copy of EHRC's final guidance

[Igneococcus]

and it looks like it's pretty rubbish:
"Under the new guidance, places such as hospital wards, gyms and leisure centres will be able to question transgender women over whether they should be using single-sex services based on how they look, their behaviour or concerns raised by others."

https://www.thetimes.com/article/82eecc43-711f-4c0a-b669-42d09d60d63e?shareToken=e5c7b92df4468caa07dbd71d66c660ab

In those days it was a lot harder to access treatment, there was more scrutiny and way less acceptance. I don’t see someone going through all that just to get their kicks. It’s easy to assume it’s just a fetish when you only hear stories about the ones that have done something awful.

We are in this mess because women and girls understood at last that there were male people coming into their single sex provisions and that they were unable to get them removed and excluded.

It was never appropriate for any of those male people to have been in those spaces. It was pure fucking male entitlement that they thought they could just access those provisions.

Is trans men accessing male spaces female
entitlement? How would describe their actions?

So you really are here deciding who is and isn’t and was and wasn’t trangsgender and / or a fetishist.

Good to know.

It is irrelevant in any case. No male people should have been using female single sex provisions.

Any person who enters a single sex provision that is not for their sex is acting entitled.

Jan Morris is supposed to be inspirational and amazing.

Then you read up and question that narrative rather a lot.

We are into the realms of propaganda here about the 'good ones from the olden days'.

This is helpful thanks. If you rea a msaculine looking women you may be challneged, just like if you look young when buying alcohol.

I guess though when you are asked to prove your age you can You can't prove your sex.
But if you couldn't prove your age (didn't have your ID on you) and looked underage, they could and should refuse service.
Same applies here?

If they can reasomaby judge your appearance suggesty you are a man they can refuse to let you use the women's space.

There are virually no women who on a double take and hearing them speak still look like they're men.

A fetish can become a powerful addiction. Castration and penile inversion can be part of the fetish. The difficulties which were in the way of achieving this would only make the goal more desirable and the anticipated "euphoria" all the greater.

Autogynephilia and transvestic fetishism are best understood as humiliation fetishes. (This is the view of Genevieve Gluck, a Canadian who has studied this extensively and is a member of the Redduxx online journalism group.) To men with this fetish, women are just receptacles of sperm. Imagining themselves being treated as women - ie in their view - objects, degraded and humiliated - is what excites them. So for some, not being accepted would be a bonus.

So what would be your criteria for letting some people who identify as transwomen into womens spaces and not others?

How would you enforce that?

https://archive.ph/iKaQe

The times article by Suki Morys on her father.

Dr Az Hakeem (mentioned up thread) says that his 'old-fashioned' homosexual transsexual patients (including those who went as far as surgery) were all on the autistic spectrum and/or suffering from childhood trauma and/or had internalised homophobia.

The rest of his 'trans' patients (and by far the majority) were fetishists or autogynephiles.

He says there is no such thing as trans: it is a proxy solution for something else. He says that not a single patient was able to describe what it is to 'be a woman' other than sex stereotypes.

We have a process where service providers have to justify why the services they offer are single sex.

TRA want the sex justification to continue, but then allow admission to the service by gender identity.

It's never going to work because ,over time, a growing number of women will have experience of men in their space. It doesnt matter if its only 1% of mainly passing men, there will be enough men in the women space who, at best, stand out, to stop the spaces feeling fit for purpose.

If TRA want to avoid this, they need to justify spaces based on gender identity. They would have to define gender identity first, of course.

I guess though when you are asked to prove your age you can You can't prove your sex.

We should put an end to falsification of documents by recording Sex and Gender Identity. Obviously there would need to be an 'I do not have a Gender Identity' option.

I find it very telling that no-one in the 'trans community' fights for this common sense solution to the poor, butch lesbian 'problem'.

We wouldn't have to worry about the poor butch lesbians being mistaken if we all had ID with sex markers we could trust.

I've not got very far through the thread yet, so this may already have been asked (and answered)...

But what if our hypothetical Suzy is a male who has convinced those closest to them that (s)he is a biological female and the person saying no is then effectively cast as the "villain" for observing that Suzy looks like a man?

I'm not really thinking about public spaces here, but about places like...

1. workplaces where some colleagues have been hoodwinked into believing the tale that Suzy is actually a woman with a (female) DSD?**
2. where the workplace is a school and Suzy is a teacher, going into the girls' changing rooms or residential accommodation?

Also...
3) where someone is a (child) student.. and their parents are supporting this as part of a "stealth" social transition?

**Edited to add: there is not a lot of public awareness of DSDs and there is enough empathy at scale to assume that if someone says they're a female with a DSD they probably are e.g. Caster Semenya.

The leaked Code of Practice applies to service providers, not employers, so 1 and 2 can't be answered with reference to this CoP. There is different law in play in addition (eg Workplace Regs 1992) and the duties of employers are different, too.

Regarding 3, there are also different laws and policies that apply to schools and to children.

What this CoP is saying is as simple as "use your common sense".

ETA:
What Suzie thinks is neither here nor there - except insofar as Suzie might kick off and cause a scene, if that's what you meant? But the CoP can't be concerned with that - it's just helping a gym or cafe owner understand the law - that they can and must say no to men, that they are acting lawfully when they do so and that they should rely on their own assessment rather than documents which are not necessarily accurate.

"I don’t see someone going through all that just to get their kicks."

And there you are either showing naivety or ignorance or wilful dismissal.

Have you not seen the degree of extreme body modification that people go through for their 'kicks'? Also, can you imagine saying to any male person who achieved career and educational requirements to be able to access their victim that they 'would go through all that just to get their kicks'?

Of fucking course they will! History is littered with male people who go through lengthy or painful or horrific processes to get their 'kicks'.

Choices are made within social and cultural contexts. The context within which many people ae now adopting such an identity directly coincides with the promotion of gender identity theory. 'Trans' is a framing device, a narrative that provides an explanation and a solution to personal feelings of distress and discomfort. There have been many other such devices throughout history.

Even back in 2010 when I was last teaching in schools and colleges, there was no such thing as 'a trans child'. Nobody had heard of it.

Social contagions are spread with great ease via social media these days ( the Iphone came in 2014), and there has been an orchestrated and concerted campaign to embed this ideology in all of our institutions. Post modernistic theories of the self promoted and taught on university campuses in the 1980s and 1990s and beyond have borne their fruit.

Stonewall, especially, was responsible for much of this in the UK ( and we have recently discovered how much Stonewall relied on U.S aid dollars) after achieving gay marriage equality they set their sights to 'trans' as the next big campaign. And here we are. The 'trans umbrella' and the whole 'queering' project.

Why are you talking about "trans people" when you mean men or 'trans women" if you prefer? It's much more polite when that is, in fact, what you mean.

No, it means that males who adopt trans identities do so for various reasons. Some prominent trans campaigners, for example, have spoken of how pornography made them trans ( Andrea Long Chu & Grace Lavery just two examples). Others such as Debbie Hayton and Miranda Yardley admit that autogynephilia is what drove their desire to 'transition'.

You don't have to adopt a trans identity to 'align' yourself with the opposite sex. Surely that is what the gay liberation movement was about...the freedom to express the full extent of your personality and sexuality even if society codes aspects of that personality or sexuality 'Masculine' or 'feminine'?

From the BBC report:

'Phillipson, who received the code nearly three months ago, added that it was important to make sure women had access to single-service provisions...'

Is this correct reporting - did she really say 'single-service provisions'?

What does that even mean?

To be honest, many of us remember those documentaries in the 1970s about those men ( and it really was 98% men) who under-went 'sex change surgery' as it was then known. They tended to fit into the same categories as today. Either homosexual in orientation and fleeing from a society in which to be a feminine man was a deep shame; or else the classic cross dresser/transvestite.

There was a great documentary on Netflix ( might still be available) 'Regretters' about two men who transitioned - one in the 1960s ( a gay man in Sweden when being gay was still illegal) and the other in the 1980s who was attracted to women but to whom the women he liked were not attracted. He decided if he couldn't have the women he desired, he'd become a woman himself ( a classic autogynephile).

Both had the 'full surgery' but decades later had come to realise that they were not really women at all and were now seeking to have reconstructive surgery and live a more authentic life as the men they were.

I think the more important question is why do you hate women so much?

It appears that you will argue any position, no matter how flimsy or logically inconsistent, so long as it serves your attempts to erode women's rights and dignity - why? Why do you hate women so much?